4 ms·
But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others Unless you have a functional h
by dsr_ 8y ago
But they should be aware that the bulk of the damage that smokers, drinkers and the obese do is to themselves, and not to others
Unless you have a functional health care system, in which case increased costs are passed on to everyone's taxes. It would be appropriate to dedicate revenues from tobacco and alcohol taxes to medical care.
Sin taxes are taxes that fall only on the users of the products or services in question, and rarely have knock-on effects like fuel taxes (which then raise the cost of transporting everything else, but promote more efficient transportation).
Adding recycling deposits, for example, vastly increases the rate of recycling, reduces litter, provides a minor source of income for the homeless, and provides a very small tax revenue.
- whatyoucantsay 8y agoSmokers cost the health care system less because they die younger: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
- rosser 8y agoBut, per that same study, "society" would net — inclusive, among other things, of pension funds not disbursed — lose ~€70k per individual, while saving less than €5k on medical expenses. Is that really a good bargain?
- manicdee 8y agoThey cost more money per year to keep alive while they're dying, and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early). The indirect costs of their mortality are far greater than the direct savings.
- flukus 8y ago> and they contribute less to the economy (because they die early) The typically don't start to die in significant numbers until they're getting up to retirement age, they're an economic burden by that point.
- refurb 8y agoIndeed. They also die early which means less social security to pay out.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- refurb 8y agoWhy would they cost more per year when dying? Lung cancer can be pretty swift versus other diseases like Alzheimer’s.
- IMTDb 8y agoSpeaking from europe where healthcare is basically free. Medical care for these patients is extremely expensive. Each surgery costs around 50 to 60 thousand euro and it's not uncommon to get 2 or 3 of those before dying. Add to that the frequent visits to the doctor's office, the oxygen tanks if needed, the medications, etc. The other option would be to just "let them die" but that's not what we decided to do as a society. The trend is that we are now able to keep them alive slightly longer, ( at a higher cost) and that they start developing symptoms slightly later thus reducing the potential "benefit" for society.
- refurb 8y agoAlzheimer’s can mean providing 24/7 care for a decade. Not sure it’s cheaper than lung cancer.
- sytse 8y agoApart from health care pending it is good to also take into account pension savings https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philip-morris-admits-terrible-mistake/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philip-morris-admits-terrible-m...
- onemoresoop 8y agoThey dont get pensions if they die early hence contribute more by not collecting
- 3pt14159 8y agoThis is true, and I once quoted sources like it as a smoker that thought sin taxes were too high, but the larger truth is that smoking should be discouraged because we should make it socially unacceptable to stop our children from getting hooked like we did. I quit. It's good that I did for its own sake. We're not just numbers on a policy planner's spreadsheet.
- phobosdeimos 8y agoFor now. Medical science advances. Keeping people alive is ofcourse great but there are costs.
- closeparen 8y agoProviding a minor source of income is usually considered unethical and illegal. Minimum wages were adopted explicitly to curtail piecework that paid only a few pennies per item. Recycling programs knowingly target the most vulnerable in society to work without protections like minimum wage, overtime, and health insurance. Yet it seems they have political support from many of of the same people who advocate labor protections. How does that work?
- dsr_ 8y agoOnly people who are not served by better programs will spend time picking up cans for recycling value. I can simultaneously want to make sure that nobody goes hungry or homeless, and still recognize that we aren't doing that today, so in the meantime having that recycling income available is better than not having it.
- closeparen 8y agoThis is exactly the neoliberal argument against labor protections in general. People would obtain jobs with dignified pay & benefits if they could. Having an option that seems exploitative is better than having no options. Thus, imposing minimum standards on the work that can be offered is harmful. Pursue other, better mechanisms to boost and lower-bound standards of living (economic growth, negative income tax). In the meantime, don't stand in the way of mutually beneficial transactions. This is a right-wing, Milton Friedman worldview. The left (pretty much by definition as "the left") emphatically rejects these arguments with respect to flipping burgers, running a cash register, or delivering groceries. What's special about picking up glass bottles?
- dsr_ 8y agoI will vote for a minimum wage. I will vote for a minimum wage with an automatic update based on any reasonable measure of inflation. I will vote for a basic income. I will vote for much higher and much more progressive income taxes. I will vote for a wealth tax. I will vote for stronger unions. I will vote for better anti-corruption measures across the board, for companies and unions and governments. And I will not vote to remove recycling deposits because you think that it's somehow exploiting poor people to let them get a little money.